A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris.

The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in 145 patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. Both treatments were applied once daily in the evenings for up to 12 weeks. Compared with adapalene, treatment with tazarotene was associated with a significantly greater incidence of treatment success (> or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P<.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P<.0001), and inflammatory lesion count (P=.0002). In the early weeks of treatment, tazarotene was associated with transiently greater levels of burning, pruritus, erythema, and peeling compared with adapalene (P<.01). However, mean levels of these parameters were consistently less than mild in both treatment groups and, at the end of treatment, patients considered both treatments to be comparably well tolerated (the proportion of patients in each group who rated the comfort of their treated skin as comfortable or very comfortable was 76% with tazarotene and 69% with adapalene). Mean usage of study medication was 0.32 g per application of tazarotene and 0.42 g per application of adapalene, which resulted in cost-effectiveness ratios of $79.95 per treatment success for tazarotene and $107.88 per treatment success for adapalene. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these cost-effectiveness results are robust across a range of cost and efficacy assumptions. In conclusion, tazarotene 0.1% gel was more effective than adapalene 0.1% gel and was also a more cost-effective treatment option.

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial of a bioartificial liver in treating acute liver failure.

OBJECTIVE: The HepatAssist liver support system is an extracorporeal porcine hepatocyte-based bioartificial liver (BAL). The safety and efficacy of the BAL were evaluated in a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial in patients with severe acute liver failure. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In experimental animals with acute liver failure, we demonstrated beneficial effects of the BAL. Similarly, Phase I trials of the BAL in acute liver failure patients yielded promising results. METHODS: A total of 171 patients (86 control and 85 BAL) were enrolled. Patients with fulminant/subfulminant hepatic failure and primary nonfunction following liver transplantation were included. Data were analyzed with and without accounting for the following confounding factors: liver transplantation, time to transplant, disease etiology, disease severity, and treatment site. RESULTS: For the entire patient population, survival at 30 days was 71% for BAL versus 62% for control (P = 0.26). After exclusion of primary nonfunction patients, survival was 73% for BAL versus 59% for control (n = 147; P = 0.12). When survival was analyzed accounting for confounding factors, in the entire patient population, there was no difference between the 2 groups (risk ratio = 0.67; P = 0.13). However, survival in fulminant/subfulminant hepatic failure patients was significantly higher in the BAL compared with the control group (risk ratio = 0.56; P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective, randomized, controlled trial of an extracorporeal liver support system, demonstrating safety and improved survival in patients with fulminant/subfulminant hepatic failure.